New Member

In reference to the Bugatti P 100 maiden flight and crash, if you watch the video, you'll see the photo helicopter fly directly over the upwind climb out
from right to left . It is my deduction that the down wash from the helicopter's
rotors blew the Bugatti out of control. The helicopter had not considered the danger of over flying the departing aircraft and should not have ever gotten close to the Bugatti P 100.

Well-Known Member

In reference to the Bugatti P 100 maiden flight and crash, if you watch the video, you'll see the photo helicopter fly directly over the upwind climb out
from right to left . It is my deduction that the down wash from the helicopter's
rotors blew the Bugatti out of control. The helicopter had not considered the danger of over flying the departing aircraft and should not have ever gotten close to the Bugatti P 100.

Well-Known Member

In reference to the Bugatti P 100 maiden flight and crash, if you watch the video, you'll see the photo helicopter fly directly over the upwind climb out
from right to left . It is my deduction that the down wash from the helicopter's
rotors blew the Bugatti out of control. The helicopter had not considered the danger of over flying the departing aircraft and should not have ever gotten close to the Bugatti P 100.

Well-Known Member

If the shot of the helicopter was through a telephoto lens, then it would be nearly impossible to say exactly where or how far it was. That fact that the crew and witnesses cited drivetrain problems pretty much pins down the actual cause, which would correlate well with the findings... failure to maintain control (due to lack of speed) can definitely be the result of a compromised drive train.

Helicopter and planes mix in the pattern all of the time without issue.

Well-Known Member

I've never been a fan of clutches on aircraft drive systems. Heavier, more complex and more things to go wrong. This very complicated drivetrain required a lot more ground testing than it had but even that might not have uncovered what occurred during this flight.

Scotty possibly became task saturated trying to sort out clutch and engine rpm issues at low altitude with speed decaying. With his years of work and attachment into the project, it likely would have been a difficult decision to put the thing down in a field and damage it. Unfortunately physics doesn't give you a second chance once speed decays to the stall. Only option then is to put the nose down and pick your best spot to set it down on.

Well-Known Member

I've never been a fan of clutches on aircraft drive systems. Heavier, more complex and more things to go wrong. This very complicated drivetrain required a lot more ground testing than it had but even that might not have uncovered what occurred during this flight.

Scotty possibly became task saturated trying to sort out clutch and engine rpm issues at low altitude with speed decaying. With his years of work and attachment into the project, it likely would have been a difficult decision to put the thing down in a field and damage it. Unfortunately physics doesn't give you a second chance once speed decays to the stall. Only option then is to put the nose down and pick your best spot to set it down on.

It takes determination, certainty and confidence to drop the nose when you are low and behind the power curve. When you’re already hanging low and slow, you have to defeat the mindset that lowering your nose will drop you out of the sky, which could happen if you don’t do it properly. It’s still better than the stall-spin alternative.

Well-Known Member

In retrospect, from an arm chair, straight ahead off airport landing was called for at first sign of front engine drive failure. It was known before takeoff that if front engine power failed, the rear engine would not sustain flight because its drive would fail above 5750rpm. So at first sign of front drive failure, shut down, switch off, clench teeth and land straight ahead must have been in the procedure list. I doubt many of us would have had the discipline, skill and willingness to undertake the high levels of risk required to fly under the circumstances and then commit at first sign of trouble to a straight ahead belly landing.

Well-Known Member

I've never been a fan of clutches on aircraft drive systems. Heavier, more complex and more things to go wrong. This very complicated drivetrain required a lot more ground testing than it had but even that might not have uncovered what occurred during this flight.

Scotty possibly became task saturated trying to sort out clutch and engine rpm issues at low altitude with speed decaying. With his years of work and attachment into the project, it likely would have been a difficult decision to put the thing down in a field and damage it. Unfortunately physics doesn't give you a second chance once speed decays to the stall. Only option then is to put the nose down and pick your best spot to set it down on.

Maybe the pilot was overloaded doing something else than piloting the plane..or lift was interrupted by something else. Nothing can bring Scottie back. Maybe something can be learned from this ?

I personally would not have allowed 3 external Go-Pros in the aeroplane that sleek with so underpowered engines.

I will be ( possibly ) banned after this comment...but I am a seriously interested of safety...so please excuse me leaving again !

I will be starting my doctorate studies this week...in fluid dynamics and I try to solve the peak output of a H-Darreius wind turbine ( with articulating blades ). I might make an ultralite AC of my own design after that. You may hear from me in the future.